What happened at BSPO could have been avoided if they did one thing and NOT have volunteer hour after qualifying is over. I know no electricity cut off volunteer hour in morning but I would have had a hour break sometime during qualifying time for this to happen or cancel it all together. I brought it up on the video stream about having it after qualifying is over and I am not a fan of this at all. For any big circuit event no more qualifying should happen after it is closed to all participants.
Then we find out that someone got to void a ticket after it has been recorded just to win a bounty . You should not be able to void a ticket after the fact if that is case I am sure plenty of others would like to void a ticket after the qualifying maybe to get one of their friends in top 24. What happened should have been avoided and the person should have had score count and been playing in A finals on Sunday .
The voided ticket was BS for sure but I don’t follow why you would say those helping to run the tournament shouldn’t get some time on the games as well. It was an unlimited entry tournament. So you got to play as many games as you wanted until you put up the score you liked. While doing that some score taker was spending 4+ hours taking your scores and not having a chance to play any games to better their scores. Now they get 1 hour of play to help make up for the time they gave up and that’s a problem? I don’t get it. If this becomes the norm your going to really struggle to get people to volunteer their time and thus struggle to get tournaments to actually happen.
If you want to complain about something else, why don’t we talk about the player that did poor in the classics division on their first game. Put up a low score on game two and bailed so they could focus on trying to get a bi in main. That’s a whole another ethical issue and one I’m surprised isn’t being discussed here. Sure, you may have wanted to go over their after you saw you fell below the cut line but once you make a commitment to play (started the playoffs) then you should be forced to stay until your round is over.
I don’t have a problem with a player removing themselves after 2 games. They could easily get DQ’d or just plunge and not play. Sure it impacts the other players, but you can’t make someone play.
You’re really OK with this? Where’s the integrity then of the sport? I’ve wanted to leave many of events because I was sucking but what message does that send?
So you are saying you would be OK if the Patriots would have left at the end of the 3rd quarter during Superbowl LI or your kids team leave at halftime of the soccer game they are losing badly at? Obviously a very weighted examples but same still applies. You commit, you stay.
“Any collaborative effort between players in an attempt to unfairly affect the outcome of the competition, or to “lock out” a third player, or to otherwise refrain from making the best possible competitive effort on each and every game played, will be looked upon very poorly by tournament officials, and may result in disciplinary action, including disqualification and/or ejection from the tournament.”
Team sports are a lot different, and profession sports have an obligation as they have sponsors that paid for airtime and fans that paid to watch.
However it is not uncommon in pro sports to sub in the C line and protect your top althetes.
It is worth pointing out the player thought they were mathematically eliminated. In many sports, like curling (but I am sure there are others), conceeding is the norm.
Thrown out? No, but not playing out the game is poor form IMO unless you’ve already won the game and further play wouldn’t change anything. Not trying on a game affects the other group participants and may impact finishing positions.
So high school golf then? You’re OK with your son or daughter quitting after the 13ths hole if they are down by 6 strokes?
And what sport is conceding the norm to where that concession can impact the possible outcomes of the other people in that game. If it’s 1 on 1 then it’s one thing but when their are 4 players/teams and one walks out it effects the integrity of the match differently than if it was just a 1 on 1 situation to where you are ending the whole game/match by that one person giving in.
And yes, I think it’s worth point out they thought they were out and actually were not mathematically eliminated thus making that action even more impactful towards the outcome of the event.
Thrown out - Nope. But a warning at min should have been issued. His actions effected other players payouts and standings. If he would have won that game then someone would have left with only 2 points which very well could have effected overall standings, WPPR points (at a Circuit event even) and potential payouts. I’m 99.9% sure he did it to save time and to try and be nice as that is what Trent is, a very nice stand-up guy. At the moment I’m betting he didn’t think of the impacts it had on other players, not in his direct group.
this does seem like something there should be a rule on. it’s pretty common that a player is locked into moving on when the other 3 players are still duking it out in the final. and I don’t think the locked in player should be forced to play.
We use a scorekeeper hour at Pintastic. Qualifying is all day Friday and half day Saturday. After qualifying ends Friday night we do it for the next hour. Then when all the regulars players get up in the morning they see what happened if anything and can make changes accordingly. Not going to take that hour away from them/us. My help works extremely hard and tirelessly all day. Not just a one or two hour shift. It’s the least I can offer.
Last comment and then I’m moving on as someone properly mentioned, I think this talk has strayed from the intent of this thread. I just want to add some info to this particular thought.
Think of this. You are in that group and have 2 points (got 3rd on both of the first 2 games). The other players shared a 1st and second and both have 6 points. You having 2 points have only one way to move on and that is winning game 3 and just one of the other two players getting last. This forces a tie breaker. Player 4 says, “peace out” because they only have 0 points. So not only does that knock them out it also knocks you out of potentially moving on.
I think this is the exact reason why the rule is in place and why I feel it is in extremely bad taste for someone to leave. If you want to just plunge your balls then so be it but that is also disrespectful to the tournament as well. If I was the TD I would not allow that player in future events.
***Edit - Oh geez… I read that wrong and it;'s the opposite situation. I’ll leave it though for the thought of players leaving early. For not trying. It still can have the same impact depending on scoring. I.E if that player gets another win then someone that took second on both games would be safe. In this instant that wasn’t the case as all other players had 2 points. If it was the other situation I’m sure Trent would have played though. He probably only didn’t because it was locked at 2 and didn’t really consider the impacts outside of his group. Again, because he was trying to be nice and just get out of the way and hurry the event along. I don’t really fault him but a reminder (the warning) would have been Ok with me from a TD.
let me rephrase what I am saying. I run a circuit event and I do have a volunteer hour set in to the tournament but will only do the volunteer hour well before all qualifying is done for the night. I am not a fan for after qualifying is over then you give a volunteer hour and as you see from the BSPO it looks like a lot of number crunching went on after the qualifying was over during that volunteer hour to see a voided ticket to sandbag out of A finals to receive a bounty.
I do like the volunteer hour but would like to see where this is done at all events before qualifying is over and not after the fact and nobody had a fighting chance to improve their score you just get bumped out of finals from this hour after qualifying is over.
Anybody can do what they want at their events but i am not a fan of this to be after qualifying is over
Volunteer hour was supposed to happen at the beginning of qualifying on Saturday. It got moved to the end due to a power outage that lasted several hours.
Few tournaments put it at the end of qualifying, and it only happened at BPSO because of something that should fall into the “acts of god” category.
Was the other group done at the time. 5,6,7,8 all got different payouts and WPPRs. It didn’t change the relative result with the other group, but it certainly could have.
To put this in context (justification not being given either way), this was the longboi of Space Shuttles. Average finals scores were in the couple of millions, so Trent probably was trying to save time.
Yes, Trent’s plunge-off could help the others in his group by guaranteeing them 4, 2 and 1 points for the final game, but I have zero problem with that. I’ve been on both sides of the same thing and treat it much like plunging off ball 3 of a win - - it’s to save time, and I view it as a courtesy to the other players. Those who might say Trent isn’t trying his best overlook the fact that he may also be conserving energy for the next round, which is essentially trying to play his best in the longer term. I see no obligation on the part of any player to pitch a shutout round if they don’t need to; it’s their choice.
As @ryanwanger said, an act-of-God event moved the volunteer hour. Would you have taken it away entirely and told your hard working volunteers “too bad”?
I like the suggestion from @triadwatch to insert the volunteer hour as a break in regular qualifying vs what was chosen. I’d also add to it by simply extending the general qualifying hours by one hour. This seems like a reasonable compromise that preserves the volunteer hour, and also preserves the finality of standings once open qualifying has ended.